Parvesh Kaushik Alias Parvesh v. Ami Lal And ORS

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (139) Date of Decision: - 26.05.2026 Parvesh Kaushik @ Parvesh ....Petitioner

Versus

Ami Lal and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. Kanwar Abhay Singh, Advocate, and Mr. Govind Rana, Advocate Mr. Arjun Dhingra, Advocate for Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4.

Ms. R.K. Brar, Advocate for Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate for respondent No.5.

**** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 21.05.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, whereby the evidence of the petitioner/defendant No.7 along with proforma respondents No.6 to 11 has been closed. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, respondents No.1 to 4 had filed a suit for permanent injunction and the present petitioner along with other defendants had filed

-2the written statement as well as the counter claim. It is further submitted that the issues in the present case were framed on 08.01.2018 and respondents No.1 to 4 had closed their evidence on 19.03.2024 after having been given opportunities to lead evidence for a period of six years. It is argued that however on the fourth opportunity, when the petitioner had examined DW-1, the evidence of the petitioner was closed. It is submitted that in case the petitioner is not permitted to lead further evidence, then, irreparable loss would be caused to him. It is further submitted that two effective opportunities be granted to the petitioner to lead his entire evidence.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 has submitted that on three dates, no witness of the present petitioner was present and has further submitted that in case any opportunity is to be granted to the petitioner, then, the same should be subject to heavy costs. It is submitted that although the evidence of seven defendants was closed by court order but only one defendant/petitioner has approached this Court, thus, the opportunities should only be granted to the present petitioner.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the objections taken on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, who are the contesting respondents, has submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay reasonable cost to respondents No.1 to 4.

5.

Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances and the fair stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by

-3learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4, the present revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 21.05.2024 (Annexure P-8) is set aside to the extent that the evidence of the petitioner/defendant No.7 has been closed by order and the petitioner is granted two effective opportunities to complete his entire evidence, subject to the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.30,000/- as cost, within a period of two weeks from today and on his depositing the said amount, Rs.30,000/- would be released by the trial Court to respondent Nos.1 to 4 in equal proportions.

6.

It is made clear that in case, the petitioner does not deposit the costs of Rs.30,000/- within a period of two weeks from today, the present revision petition would be deemed to have been dismissed. ( VIKAS BAHL ) May 26, 2026 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes Whether reportable?

No